↓ Skip to main content

Eyewitness Memory in Face-to-Face and Immersive Avatar-to-Avatar Contexts

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
71 X users

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Eyewitness Memory in Face-to-Face and Immersive Avatar-to-Avatar Contexts
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00507
Pubmed ID
Authors

Donna A. Taylor, Coral J. Dando

Abstract

Technological advances offer possibilities for innovation in the way eyewitness testimony is elicited. Typically, this occurs face-to-face. We investigated whether a virtual environment, where interviewer and eyewitness communicate as avatars, might confer advantages by attenuating the social and situational demands of a face-to-face interview, releasing more cognitive resources for invoking episodic retrieval mode. In conditions of intentional encoding, eyewitnesses were interviewed 48 h later, either face-to-face or in a virtual environment (N = 38). Participants in the virtual environment significantly outperformed those interviewed face-to-face on all episodic performance measures - improved correct reporting reduced errors, and increased accuracy. Participants reported finding it easier to admit not remembering event information to the avatar, and finding the avatar easier to talk to. These novel findings, and our pattern of retrieval results indicates the potential of avatar-to-avatar communication in virtual environments, and provide impetus for further research investigating eyewitness cognition in contemporary retrieval contexts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 71 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Student > Master 5 9%
Other 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 17 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 28 49%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 17 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 133. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 June 2020.
All research outputs
#319,564
of 25,759,158 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#653
of 34,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,157
of 341,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#18
of 593 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,759,158 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,777 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,684 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 593 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.